Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid

[Robotbeat]

There are only so many ports on the ISS - Jupiter comes and is filled with trash then its SpaceX's turn...what does Jupiter do now - wait around for the next Atlas launch that maybe many months away?

Jupiter departs station and goes into a standby orbit. Isn't it kind of obvious?

[gospacex]

Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful.

Why you aren't talking of SpaceX then? They don't dump their spacecraft, you know...

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS

Hardly a convincing argument. Shuttle is a benchmark how not to do things.

You need to explain why this Lockheed thingy is better then _SpaceX_ cargo delivery method.

[kevinof]

If for some strange reason, Nasa want's to add a new section to the ISS (or move ISS/bits of it to maybe L2 in 10 years time) who would  it do it? We no longer have the Shuttle to deliver something this large. Could Jupiter be used for this? The module is delivered to orbit, Jupiter docks and moves to the ISS where it is attached.

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful.

Why you aren't talking of SpaceX then? They don't dump their spacecraft, you know...

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS

Hardly a convincing argument. Shuttle is a benchmark how not to do things.

You need to explain why this Lockheed thingy is better then _SpaceX_ cargo delivery method.

[TrevorMonty]

There are only so many ports on the ISS - Jupiter comes and is filled with trash then its SpaceX's turn...what does Jupiter do now - wait around for the next Atlas launch that maybe many months away?

Leaves ISS and does its secondary payload's mission until next Exoliner is delivered by a Centuar.

[fgonella]

Dragon and Jupiter complement each other: the former for retrieval, the latter for more upmass and disposal, both reusable. Additionally, you have redundancy with 2 reliable LVs.

[baldusi]

Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.

Why would Bigelow want to look at the concept?

Besides what's been said above, it add a man tender experiment capability for free. Bigelow wants to optimize for price and this might probably be the cheapest solution on a USD/kg basis. And it add capabilities, scalability and fault tolerance.
Say that you use tugs with both chemical and SEP capabilities. Those tugs could both carry your station to the Moon and, when attached, offer reboost, gyro desat and DAM capabilities. You wouldn't need complicated GNC and propulsion on the Bigelow modules, just let the tug take it away from the US and bring it to the correct orbit.
And if you can take some of the power generated by the solar panels when attached, now you would have a scalable and fault redundant power system.
But that's not all, you can mix and match LV at pleasure, with what's probably one of the easiest to integrate cargo. So you can reaaally compete on price. And you get the arm, which is an interesting point.
Have you wondered about the Bigelow business model? Will it have external payloads capabilities? How will those get accessed, by EVA or by pressure lock? There's a very interesting market for delivery cubesats from the ISS, and probably microsats in the future. Bigelow might well want a piece of that.
But there's more, if you use what the Altius boys have been working on (putting a microsat launcher on the CBM door), a concept like Jupiter might allow the crew to prep the sats, and let the tug move to a higher orbit for release. And if you can do that, you can also use the pressurized module for doing dangerous experiments. Or if you need really goo microgravity, the crew preps the experiments, the tug takes it higher and let's it drift to get the best environment, and then returns to station for processing and return on a Dragon.
The capabilities are endless and it would solve most of the current tradeoffs between material sciences and physiology experiments.

[MattMason]

Like other transportation "conductors" and traffic management systems, the only thing that Jupiter has to consider is the many types of interconnectors to be found on the spacecraft it would have to manage. Items built by Lockheed/ULA would be easy, but what about an errant cargo Dragon? Could Jupiter have a "universal" clamp or utilize the Dragon's Canadarm grapple to move that ship to the ISS itself, and then aid in its deberthing and even deorbiting?

Someone's idea of Jupiter being supplied with small deorbiting engines that could be connected to space junk is fascinating. There's also emergency rescue of CC vehicles, moving them to ISS, or even inspection of said vehicles (just because they don't use TPS doesn't mean they're immune from issues involving safe reentries).

And commercial stations like Bigelow's need a tender to assemble a few pieces. There's also the matter of disassembling the ISS when its day is over.

The more I think of Jupiter's versatility, the more it seems that such a space-tender is the best thing to be envisioned since propulsive landings.

We're going to need more than one of these babies.

Edit: clarification

[notsorandom]

If for some strange reason, Nasa want's to add a new section to the ISS (or move ISS/bits of it to maybe L2 in 10 years time) who would  it do it? We no longer have the Shuttle to deliver something this large. Could Jupiter be used for this? The module is delivered to orbit, Jupiter docks and moves to the ISS where it is attached.

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Based on previous discussions Cygnus can provide the capability to launch new modules to the station. It would function much as the Progress based tugs have in delivering the Poisk and Pirs. The PCM would be replaced with the new module and Cygnus would have to be modified like the Progress was to separate and then dispose of itself. Jupiter may have more capability to deliver a bigger module. I think in any case such a scenario would be outside the CRS-2 contract and be an new and separate contract to deliver the new module.

[thydusk666]

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Most likely because this capability hasn't been requested.

[edkyle99]

Why the announcement now?  Bids were due in Dec  - so what has LM got to gain by making this announcememt - why not wait till you have a contract?  How much is LM "investing" in this project without NASA?  How long have they been working on it?  What stage of development is LM?

Contract bidders traditionally advertise during such competitions, to build awareness in various offices, usually in and near Washington DC. 

How many knew about the "Jupiter" concept two weeks ago?  Now we're talking about it, and wondering what other things it might do, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

[kevinof]

Ok thanks. Didn't know that.

So the advantage that Jupiter would have is that  you could stick the new module on top of a "dumb" second stage and so save the cost on the SM? You also save on mass so, in theory, could launch a bigger payload. Wonder what the cost difference would be?

If for some strange reason, Nasa want's to add a new section to the ISS (or move ISS/bits of it to maybe L2 in 10 years time) who would  it do it? We no longer have the Shuttle to deliver something this large. Could Jupiter be used for this? The module is delivered to orbit, Jupiter docks and moves to the ISS where it is attached.

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Based on previous discussions Cygnus can provide the capability to launch new modules to the station. It would function much as the Progress based tugs have in delivering the Poisk and Pirs. The PCM would be replaced with the new module and Cygnus would have to be modified like the Progress was to separate and then dispose of itself. Jupiter may have more capability to deliver a bigger module. I think in any case such a scenario would be outside the CRS-2 contract and be an new and separate contract to deliver the new module.

[WindnWar]

It will be interesting to see the life span of the components if this is placed in orbit. Maven did a 33 minute burn to enter orbit, how many minutes are the engines rated for and how long of burns will be needed to drop off and pick up new cargo then berth with the station? Maven was about 2500 kilos of which about 1500 was fuel, this will be moving a 5,000 kilo or so cargo pod right? What is the fuel requirements and engine burn time for each mission? Will Jupiter need larger tanks?

[arachnitect]

Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful.

Why you aren't talking of SpaceX then? They don't dump their spacecraft, you know...

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS

Hardly a convincing argument. Shuttle is a benchmark how not to do things.

You need to explain why this Lockheed thingy is better then _SpaceX_ cargo delivery method.

In the context of CRS-II this proposal is "better" than spacex because it offers more volume and upmass.

It is not competing with Dragon, it is competing with Cygnus. I'd actually say the best thing Jupiter-Exoliner has going for it is that if it can do the work of multiple Cynguses in one flight, thereby allowing NASA to buy more Dragon missions which are cheap and have downmass.

[baldusi]

It will be interesting to see the life span of the components if this is placed in orbit. Maven did a 33 minute burn to enter orbit, how many minutes are the engines rated for and how long of burns will be needed to drop off and pick up new cargo then berth with the station? Maven was about 2500 kilos of which about 1500 was fuel, this will be moving a 5,000 kilo or so cargo pod right? What is the fuel requirements and engine burn time for each mission? Will Jupiter need larger tanks?

Low thrust (1kN or so) engines are easy to certify. Doing a 4000 seconds or even a 40,000 second certification with a vacuum chamber is a week's work or so. Hall thrusters, on the other hand, might take months. Basically because to get the same impulse you need to run the Hall engine 20X longer (or more). So if you are worried about a crash program, chemical is quite doable. Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass). But quite "easy" to do as certification goes.
Now, big rockets (many kN size) or long thrusting (like Hall thrusters), those are expensive and slow to certify. Probably the reason they are not proposing the SEP version from the start. Once they commercial GTO market does proves them, they will be sort of a commodity.

[TrevorMonty]

Jupiter could support small cargo modules launched on one of the new small sat LVs eg Electron, Firefly, VG Launcher one. These would ideal for critical emergency spares as they could be launched within days not weeks, especially if a LV has been put aside for this purpose. The small pressurized module could be brought into ISS via crew airlock. For disposal place it in a Cygnus or Exoliner.

Small reentry vehicles are being design to return time critical experiments. Jupiter could safely take these well clear of ISS before releasing and arming their propulsion system.

[Space Ghost 1962]

All MAVEN components here are overqualified from the start for Jupiter, every way imaginable. One of the reasons it was chosen for this. You want something to last in terms of lifetime, base it off any current interplanetary bus.

Which feeds nicely into keeping alive the bus for further missions. They have a tendency to go technologically stale, and are costly to upgrade.

Now lets apply this to the other components. Arm/effectors - used on ISS. How long working on-orbit? Used on Shuttle? Maintenance logs? Containers - used on ISS. Ditto.

Now, take another step. Lets say you actually get a Jupiter on orbit, in use. All of these get routinely exercised, accumulating even more flight history/telemetry/etc. And, in this case, you might be able to swap out parts to return to earth to understand wear/effectiveness from a lab on earth. You might refly it or swap from unpressurized cargo, refitting and enhancing ever so gradually.

Now its time to bid on next interplanetary probe. Who are you gonna choose? This is what aerospace is all about. Refining your game to always be the best.
 

[Space Ghost 1962]

... Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass).

Centaur (perhaps even also F9/other US) can do second burn for circularize, third for disposal.

It need only do phasing for KOS. Much less than MAVEN burns.

Oh, and MAVEN's elliptical orbit (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission) takes it close to the atmosphere and after the science  (first results this week at the LPSC in Houston!) concludes, a circular orbit for relay work (which unfortunately kills the atmospheric sensors, but that's another issue). So the propulsion systems and platform torques/stabilization are quite robust.

Also, since the approach is to an active target for handoff, one can trim the dispersions using Jupiter fine thrusters using GPS/other navaids. The handoff can be done without phasing delays.

[baldusi]

... Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass).

Centaur (perhaps even also F9/other US) can do second burn for circularize, third for disposal.

It need only do phasing for KOS. Much less than MAVEN burns.

Oh, and MAVEN's elliptical orbit (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission) takes it close to the atmosphere and after the science  (first results this week at the LPSC in Houston!) concludes, a circular orbit for relay work (which unfortunately kills the atmospheric sensors, but that's another issue). So the propulsion systems and platform torques/stabilization are quite robust.

Also, since the approach is to an active target for handoff, one can trim the dispersions using Jupiter fine thrusters using GPS/other navaids. The handoff can be done without phasing delays.

Well, I didn't stated how much they had to circularize  . I understand that they usually launch with apogee right below ISS, and perigee is more of how much they want the US to last as debris. But if they are going to do a deorbit burn, now that you mention it, yes, they could get pretty close. As much as the ISS people feel safe about, I would guess.

[A_M_Swallow]

A future use for the Jupiter is as a construction drone in a spaceship yard. Use a Bigelow module as a habitat for the people and control room. The first Jupiter performs the station keeping for the spacecraft being built. The second Jupiter attaches the new module. The third Jupiter acts as spare, collects new modules from low orbit, collects cargo for the spacestation and joins pipes & electrical cables.

[inventodoc]

No opinion yet here.

To be honest, I'm still grappling with the question of whether this whole Jupiter/exoliner thing makes any sense.

It MIGHT be useful in deeper space, not sure about ISS. If only there were some numbers to crunch....